How can a $200 amp from the 70's be better than a $2000 amp built today?

[MyLittleViking]

IMHO all of the current receivers, integrated amps, and separate pre-amps suck at reproducing 2-channel audio. Almost any $200 Pioneer, Sansui, Yamaha or Marantz receiver from the 70's will blow away anything out there today. There were other companies, but these "top 4" are readily available and many are still serviceable. And talk about reliable, the fact that many are still performing as well today as they did back then is saying a lot. Not to mention they all have great tuners, and are very user friendly, and most can handle numerous inputs. A $2000 Yamaha, Sony ES, Denon, etc. built today just cannot compare for 2-channel audio.

The new stuff uses IC chips and chip line sections in their amp sections. And they all sound bad. If that isn't bad enough they typically digitize the signal and then convert it back to analog.

Yes, the 80's discrete separates are better. A PS Audio pre along with a GAS, Threshold, or Nakamichi STASIS amp will flat out BLOW AWAY the best thats out there today. About the only receiver in the 80's that could hold a candle to these was the Sony STR-GX10ES.

I want an amp with an all analog section with discrete outputs. Leave the digital to analog conversion to a different device. Am I right folks?

For those who want 7.1 for home theater. Use a pre-amp processor to take care of the digital stuff with analog outs and mono-block amps with discrete outputs.

These overpriced monster home theater receivers need to go.. I can't stand it anymore... Too many people on too many forums think that their Denon 7.1 receiver that they paid $5000 for is the "bee knees" when in fact a $200 receiver built almost 40 years ago smokes it, and separates built 25 years ago which can be had for under $1000 beat them into submission for 2-channel audio.

[MikeBrewster77]

Are you comparing apples to apples?

It sounds as is if you're specifically referencing the flaws of home theater receivers. Have you auditioned any current stereo receivers or integrated's? That would be a more fair comparison, no?

For my money (and having had more vintage gear than I care to admit) there are some very competitive 2-channel units being produced today, and at very reasonable prices - ostensibly, because there's not as significant a demand vs. home theater units.

[SEAWOLF97]

It is my unsubstantiated opinion that gear "of an era" sound better together...ie: 1970's speakers sound great with electronics of that era....and conversely .....vintage speakers are not quite as good on todays hardware.......anyone agree ? anyone even know what I'm trying to say ? :o:

[MikeBrewster77]

anyone even know what I'm trying to say ? :o:

Yes, I do. I have my L46's paired with a vintage Luxman integrated from approximately the same era, and it's a very nice combo. OTOH, the PT 800's are matched to far newer upstream components, and they sound marvelous. :D

[Akira]

It is my unsubstantiated opinion that gear "of an era" sound better together...ie: 1970's speakers sound great with electronics of that era....and conversely .....vintage speakers are not quite as good on todays hardware.......anyone agree ? anyone even know what I'm trying to say ? :o:
As for today's gear not being as good, nothing could be further from the truth at the top end... a lot of over priced stuff but, the high end is built with extreme quality and all of the advancements incorporated over the last 50 years.
BUT, HOW MUCH BETTER?
I would venture to say very little.
I own 5 Brystons all over 20 years old. While getting a couple of my oldest ones serviced (aged 26 years plus) I asked one of their head technicians how much better the new ones are. He looked around, and when the coast was clear he said, "oh the numbers are better, but in the end not much".

AS FOR SPEAKERS???
What do you think? Are today's speakers that much better than the vintage stuff?

[Mr. Widget]

Well???

First of all, I take issue with your nomenclature. An amp is a basic power amplifier, an integrated amp is a power amp with a line stage and perhaps a phono preamp, and a typical receiver is an amplifier with a line stage, a phono preamp, and a tuner built in. I am fairly certain you know all that, but when you say, "How can a $200 amp from the 70's be better than a $2000 amp built today?" I have to disagree with you, however if you say, "How can a $200 receiver (as priced on the used market) from the 70's be better than a $2000 receiver built today?" I'd say you answered it nicely below:

The new stuff uses IC chips and chip line sections in their amp sections. And they all sound bad. If that isn't bad enough they typically digitize the signal and then convert it back to analog.

There are exquisite amps, preamps, line stages etc. all being designed and built today... but none can compete with the prices of used gear. That said, just like a used car, maintenance and repairs are often necessary with the older equipment... and just as a lightly used and garaged 60's car will perform remarkably well, time will have taken it's toll on many of the parts and the car will not really perform as new.


AS FOR SPEAKERS???
What do you think? Are today's speakers that much better than the vintage stuff?The easy answer is that a TOTL speaker today is most certainly better than a TOTL speaker from decades ago in every imaginable objective parameter, with the possible exception of sensitivity, though the importance of sensitivity is an arguable one. The same can be said for the entry level speakers, however at the mid points it becomes difficult to define comparable models to compare.

That said, with older speakers typically being large and unpopular with the majority of today's potential buyers their market value is depressed which makes them significant bargains.


Widget

[Chas]

That said, just like a used car, maintenance and repairs are often necessary with the older equipment... and just as a lightly used and garaged 60's car will perform remarkably well, time will have taken it's toll on many of the parts and the car will not really perform as new.
Widget

Sounds like what an Alfa owner would say!:D

[Mr. Widget]

Sounds like what an Alfa owner would say!:DYep, some vintage gear requires a bit more love than others. ;)


Widget

[hjames]

Sounds like what an Alfa owner would say!:D
Careful, I was a 2 time Alfisti! Or, as they called us around DC - Alfanatics!
(63 Giulia with 67 duetto drivetrain 1600dohc w/twin webers & 5 sp - then later a 73 GTV 2000)

[jcrobso]

I bought a Sherwood Stereo 100w/channel receiver to power my JBL Control1 plus for my PC speakers. It was $90 delivered.
40 years ago a receiver with the same specs would have cost $350~400.
Which one is better??? Which one would measure better on a test bench? Interesting question, The 40 year old one would have all discrete circuits and many electrolytic caps would have dried up. Which would one would test better or sound better?
I still have that 35W/channel Knight kit amp I built 43 years ago. A while ago I hooked it up to have listen and all it did was Buzz!!:( All of the power supply caps had gone bad and that is something to consider in vintage audio electronics.
At the radio station I have some VERY expensive audio gear, cost thousands of $$$$. Inside are chips lots of chips, the specs are excellent.
Which is better??? I don't know.
45 years ago I learned that speakers are the most important part of a sound system! This has NOT changed, it is still true today!

[Wornears]

The only car out of the 30 or so I've owned, which educated me more about DIY car repair and maintenance than my three '70s Alfetta sedans (one an automatic), was an Audi 5000 Turbo.

So, Alfas have their value. <G>

[BMWCCA]

...Audi 5000 Turbo.I sold Audis (and BMW and Porsche) for twenty years (1976-1995). Never ever felt the urge to own one. Other than the rare Turbo Quattro coupe, I enjoyed the 4000S Quattro the most since the AWD cars actually had pretty decent brakes where the FWD cars always diminished rear-wheel braking mechanically because of the front-end dive. Long-term reliability was so bad Audi practically invented the three-year lease. No one should ever be burdened with an out-or-warranty Audi. I never wished that on my friends, most of whom still happily drive BMWs today.

[MyLittleViking]

Well???

First of all, I take issue with your nomenclature. An amp is a basic power amplifier, an integrated amp is a power amp with a line stage and perhaps a phono preamp, and a typical receiver is an amplifier with a line stage, a phono preamp, and a tuner built in. I am fairly certain you know all that, but when you say, "How can a $200 amp from the 70's be better than a $2000 amp built today?" I have to disagree with you, however if you say, "How can a $200 receiver (as priced on the used market) from the 70's be better than a $2000 receiver built today?" I'd say you answered it nicely below:


Widget

I agree, I am talking mostly of the consumer based "receivers" sold in higher end stores. I KNOW there is better stuff out there, but as to the cost to sound ratio, for the most part, I'll stick with my PS Audio Pre and Threshold STASIS. This combo is about 1/5th the cost of something new that will rival it.

If you notice I mentioned a nice Sony receiver that was 2/channel and used discrete outputs. That is what I am looking for, for the speakers and set-ups I run anyways. I have processors that do the D/A converting... leave the amplification to analog!

[Titanium Dome]

IMHO all of the current receivers, integrated amps, and separate pre-amps suck at reproducing 2-channel audio. Almost any $200 Pioneer, Sansui, Yamaha or Marantz receiver from the 70's will blow away anything out there today.

So are you talking amps (as in your title) or not? Apparently not, as Widget pointed out and you more or less confirmed. "IMHO" or not, your credibility is doubtful when you contradict yourself like this. You're off topic in the first two sentences in your own thread.


And talk about reliable, the fact that many are still performing as well today as they did back then is saying a lot.

Do you have any back up for this hyperbole? Any support of this "fact"?


Not to mention they all have great tuners, and are very user friendly, and most can handle numerous inputs.

Where are you pulling this from? Have you counted inputs or done user-freindly evaluations of comparable two channel receivers? They all do not have great tuners. I was there. Many of them were very poor.


A $2000 Yamaha, Sony ES, Denon, etc. built today just cannot compare for 2-channel audio.

Why are you comparing MCH receivers to two-channel gear? :confused:




Yes, the 80's discrete separates are better. A PS Audio pre along with a GAS, Threshold, or Nakamichi STASIS amp will flat out BLOW AWAY the best thats out there today. About the only receiver in the 80's that could hold a candle to these was the Sony STR-GX10ES.

Again with the apples and oranges... and there's nothing special about 80s discrete units compared to today's discrete units, so why make these mismatched claims?


I want an amp with an all analog section with discrete outputs. Leave the digital to analog conversion to a different device. Am I right folks?

For those who want 7.1 for home theater. Use a pre-amp processor to take care of the digital stuff with analog outs and mono-block amps with discrete outputs.

And now we're back to amps, I think.


These overpriced monster home theater receivers need to go.. I can't stand it anymore... Too many people on too many forums think that their Denon 7.1 receiver that they paid $5000 for is the "bee knees" when in fact a $200 receiver built almost 40 years ago smokes it, and separates built 25 years ago which can be had for under $1000 beat them into submission for 2-channel audio.

Forty years ago is 1969. I was in college in 1969, and my buds and I spent a lot of time bugging salesmen at Hi-Fi shops, listening to every piece of equipment on display: Marantz, Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood, Panasonic, Fisher, Sansui, Scott, Sherwood, Yamaha, JVC, Onkyo, and Harman Kardon. As wonderful and nostalgic as these brands were then, other than build standards, there is little to redeem their old products today.

A trip down memory lane is nice, but it doesn't change history or reality. These are beautifully designed units using old technology and old parts, both of which are past their prime.

Guess what? Sherwood, Onkyo, Sony, Yamaha, and Harman Kardon still make stereo receivers under $300, as do Denon and Outlaw among others. Any one of these will be better than most receivers from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and unless you find a NIB old stock 80s receiver that was hermetically sealed and stored in optimum conditions (no heat, no cold, no humidity, no vibration). Even the best of the 80s will need significant restoration to come back to original operation quality, so you can address the old parts but not the old technology.

[BMWCCA]

Forty years ago is 1969. I was in college in 1969, and my buds and I spent a lot of time bugging salesmen at Hi-Fi shops, listening to every piece of equipment on display...High-school for me, but same experiences. By then I'd traded my "new" Kenwood on an "old" Fisher SA1000 and Mac C-20. I still have the C-20, but more out of lazy nostalgia than anything else. The Fisher proved unreliable (needed new RCA tubes annually) so that by 1972 I'd traded it on a Crown D150 that soldiers on with the Mac today.

I appreciate the value a $200 Crown PS400 offers, but I'm certain if money were no object a new "something" could best it for ten-times the cost, or less. But then maybe a few hundred spent on the old stuff to ensure it was to-spec might make for an interesting comparison. Quality 1970 equipment adjusted in price for inflation would allow quite a budget in today's equipment. While not with the same advancements as, say, computers, I'm sure today's technology properly applied provides quite the experience. May the Lord smite me with it, and may I never recover! ;)

[Mr. Widget]

Guess what? Sherwood, Onkyo, Sony, Yamaha, and Harman Kardon still make stereo receivers under $300, as do Denon and Outlaw among others. Any one of these will be better than most receivers from the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and unless you find a NIB old stock 80s receiver that was hermetically sealed and stored in optimum conditions (no heat, no cold, no humidity, no vibration). Even the best of the 80s will need significant restoration to come back to original operation quality, so you can address the old parts but not the old technology.I'd suggest that by the '80s the lower priced pieces were all pretty piss poor as they are today. Certainly most vintage gear needs work, but if you find a good tech, you will find that the above average receivers from the '70s like the Marantz, Denon, Pioneer, etc. do sound better than the new affordable gear of today... I am talking two-channel to two channel. As for convenience, the remotes are hard to give up, but if you are after sound quality alone, a refurbished vintage piece is hard to beat.


Widget

[SEAWOLF97]

I bought a near TOTL Marantz 2385 receiver a couple of months ago ....yes , it did require some refurbishing ......for 2 channel it sounded very good...have never heard any receiver sound better

BUT it wasnt $200 new or even now.

[jcrobso]

I went into an Allied Radio store in Oak Park just after the store opened there was sales one person in the store. I told him I just wanted to listen to Hi-Fi gear to help make purchase decision (OK, I did really have any money, but I didn't tell him that) I spent over two hours listened to everything in the room. The main Allied store in Chicago was all wise busy and they weren't going to let a 19 year old kid just listen to his hearts content when there were customers that had money there.
The Listening room was about 25~30' at the Oak Park store. Most of the top gear of that era was there, Mac, HH Scott, JBL, Jensen, AR, etc.
I listened most of everything there, I noticed that switching from one amp to another did not make as big a difference in the sound as switching from speaker to speaker did. From that point on I just concentrated on speakers, I really came in to listen to JBL, but decided to listen others as well.
One of the "Hot" brands of day Acoustic Research (AR) I did listen to them but I just have never liked the sound, The Jensen's were OK, as were the University. I had heard a Paragon at the Chicago store, but I really wanted to spend time listening to speakers that I could someday actually afford. And that is what I did at the store, to this day I don't spend a lot of time on amps. Don't get me wrong I do believe that good amp is important, I just most of my emphasis on the speakers!

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think we need to see specific examples to validate the arguement.

From where I stand most $200 solid state amps from the 70's were absolute "SHIT" and it has been proven so by virtue of the manner in which they were designed to produce specs on paper that sold (marketed) amps compared to todays domestic amplifiers.

If we take $200 in the 70s and add inflation it would be more like $2000.

Most $2000 amps of today have technology and design engineering that has trickled down from top of the range products costing 3 x from a few years ago.

What is probably more amusing is that a $200 amp of today is just way better than a $200 amp from the 70's because of the technology inside it.

I have a Jaycar 20+20 watt amp with dual valve front end and thick film solid state output stage that was just $200.
Its not too far behind a Dared Audio $2000 valve amp.

[SEAWOLF97]

If we take $200 in the 70s and add inflation it would be more like $2000.

What cost $200 in 1970 would cost $1097.17 in 2008.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

but YES....my 1969 Pioneer TOTL receiver had huge amounts of distortion, unlistenable today.



What is probably more amusing is that a $200 amp of today is just way better than a $200 amp from the 70's because of the technology inside it.

can't seem to find any ...and afraid to go to WallyMart to check

LATER: just paged thru the AudioAdvisor catalog...the cheapest 2 channel receiver there was $499

[Titanium Dome]

I loved my then new Kenwood KR-6160. It looked cool and seemed to be built like a tank, but like its American iron counterpart, the V-8 engine, it was overbuilt and under-engineered. As a stock V-8 today is to a stock V-8 of the era, there's just no comparison in actual performance, sophistication, engineering, or technology.

While my KR-6160, rebuilt three times, still looks pretty cool, it's just crap compared to the Panasonic XR-10 digital receiver I got for close to $100 at Ken Crane's a couple years ago.

[Mr. Widget]

I think we need to see specific examples to validate the arguement.Very good point Ian.

I use as my baseline a Marantz 2275 that I picked up a few years back for $250. Comparing it to all of the Denon, NAD, Onkyo etc. integrateds that I have heard in recent years, it does sound closer to the audiophile stuff than the mass produced gear we get today.

Widget

[louped garouv]

45 years ago I learned that speakers are the most important part of a sound system! This has NOT changed, it is still true today!


and I thought the room was just as important....

;)

[Titanium Dome]

and I thought the room was just as important....

;)

:o: Heh, it took me 25 years to really think about that and another ten to get serious. Now I CAN'T STOP THINKING about it.

Well, I think about that and about what else I missed or must be doing wrong. When it gets too crazy, I just go downstairs, turn up the volume, and forget about it.
:rockon2:

[BMWCCA]

So is it amps from the '70s that cost $200 then, or is it amps from the '70s that sell for $200 now?

My Crown D150 listed for $399 when I bought it in '73 but I got $120 in trade for the Fisher SA1000 I paid $90 for a couple of years earlier. Today it's worth maybe $200, but then I have PS400s I paid $100 for. So what are we comparing here? Apples and oranges, for sure. ;)

[Mr. Widget]

and I thought the room was just as important....

;)The speakers and the room will make more of a difference than an amp, preamp, source, or yes, even cables. :D

That said, listening to my speakers in my room with a variety of amps including vintage SS designs from the '70s, more modern Haflers, vintage tube and solid state McIntosh amps, and even some modern single ended tube designs... they each have a sound of their own. Some sound decidedly better, some rather poor, and others simply different.

I have been uniformly disappointed by the mainstream more affordable offerings from everyone in the receiver/integrated amp arena. The all analog contemporary 2 channel designs without a DSP are certainly the best of the bunch, but they still sound hard, veiled, and rather unpleasant compared to the better vintage and contemporary designs.


Widget

[jcrobso]

and I thought the room was just as important....

;)
But no room on earth is going to make bad set of speakers sound good.
I don't care how good the room is a Bo$e speaker will still sound bad!;)

[SEAWOLF97]

But no room on earth is going to make bad set of speakers sound good.
I don't care how good the room is a Bo$e speaker will still sound bad!;)

We used to have an "Incredible Universe" store where Fryes now is ...it was a lot more fun ...lots of listening rooms...hands on stuff

The permanent Bose demo room was stacked in the manf's favor, of course...pick the room, pick the program material , etc....but their demo did sound OK ....not enuff to make me interested....but not bad....couldnt even tell you which system it was ...seems like it was some $2k deal....mebbe a LifeStyle 95 or some such.. :blink:

[MikeBrewster77]

But no room on earth is going to make bad set of speakers sound good.
I don't care how good the room is a Bo$e speaker will still sound bad!;)

Very true, yet I seem to recall hearing stories that it wasn't only the auditioning space that was designed in Bose systems' favour, but that they also had a substantial amount of additional equalization equipment (not the stock units sold with the 901's mind you) hidden "behind the curtain" that significantly helped to enhance their sound within that controlled environment.

Thus the audition in your own listening environment and with your own upstream components credo! I've been fortunate to work with folks who had such guarantees (30 days+ in your own home to decide) and would strongly suggest anyone auditioning new gear attempting their hardest to find the same type of arrangement! :yes:

Unfortunately that arrangement hasn't applied to me re: newer JBL offerings, since I've yet to find a local dealer - but that's not going to be any surprise to anyone here. Luckily, the newer JBL's I've purchased unheard have MORE than rewarded my reluctance to buy before auditioning. :D

[Ducatista47]

We still have a local audio store here that lets you take stuff home and try it out - before you buy it. They understand synergy and rooms.

I know how lucky we are. If they close I guess I will be satisfied with what I have. But I will miss dealing with two good friends.

Clark

[1audiohack]

From the "Audio and Acoustic DNA-Do You Know Your Audio and Acoustic Ancestors?" by Don Davis in the Fourth Edition of Handbook Fo Sound Engineers, 2008.



By the beginning of WWII, Lincoln Walsh had designed what is still today considered the lowest distortion power amplifier using all triode 2A3s. Solid state devices, even today, have yet to match the perfection of amplifiers such as Lincoln Walsh's Brook with its all triode2A3's or Marantz's EL34 all triode amplifier. The Walsh amplifiers with the linearity and harmonic structure achieved by these seminal tube amplifiers, are still being constructed by devotees of fidelity who also know how to design reasonable efficiency loudspeakers.

It's funny how some things were got so right so long ago. I would love to hear/have one of these, can anyone shed more light on this than this paragraph lends?

Thanks,
Barry.

[Titanium Dome]

The language confounds me.


still today considered the lowest distortion power amplifier using all triode 2A3s

1. Considered by whom?
2. Measured how and against what?
3. Because of the use of triode 2A3s it was the lowest distortion power amplifier ever made bar none?
3. Or it was/is the lowest distortion power amp that has triode 2A3s in it?

:hmm: Not clear to me, and that's just the first sentence of the quote. So I'll echo Barry's query: can anyone shed some light on this?

[jcrobso]

When I was in school the distortion meter there was only good/accurate to 1% THD, today's meters can measure .001% THD. How would those old amps measure up on today test gear?
Tube amps distortion % increases as the power increases, SS amps the % of distortion decreases as the power goes up. All of this assumes that we are not going into clipping.
The plate transfer curve of a tube is NOT linear by any means. The most linear mode for a tube is a pentode in the ultra linear mode, push-pull.
A triode in push pull mode is next, single ended class A is good, BUT the power output is very low, because of the small linear part of the plate transfer curve.
With SS amps it is very easy to get .01% THD.

[MyLittleViking]

I'd suggest that by the '80s the lower priced pieces were all pretty piss poor as they are today. Certainly most vintage gear needs work, but if you find a good tech, you will find that the above average receivers from the '70s like the Marantz, Denon, Pioneer, etc. do sound better than the new affordable gear of today... I am talking two-channel to two channel. As for convenience, the remotes are hard to give up, but if you are after sound quality alone, a refurbished vintage piece is hard to beat.


Widget

Basically all I was trying to say.

[MyLittleViking]

The speakers and the room will make more of a difference than an amp, preamp, source, or yes, even cables. :D

That said, listening to my speakers in my room with a variety of amps including vintage SS designs from the '70s, more modern Haflers, vintage tube and solid state McIntosh amps, and even some modern single ended tube designs... they each have a sound of their own. Some sound decidedly better, some rather poor, and others simply different.

I have been uniformly disappointed by the mainstream more affordable offerings from everyone in the receiver/integrated amp arena. The all analog contemporary 2 channel designs without a DSP are certainly the best of the bunch, but they still sound hard, veiled, and rather unpleasant compared to the better vintage and contemporary designs.


Widget

My thoughts exactly!